Re: Temporary Views

Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> > SQL99 is pretty clear about temporary tables, at least.
> 
> It is ... and in fact the spec's notion of a temp table has nearly
> nothing to do with ours.  They contemplate a temp table as an abstract
> table schema, if you will, that gets instantiated locally within a
> session upon first use.  There is no ability in the spec for two
> sessions to create unrelated temp tables of the same name --- their temp
> tables of the same name must share the same, predefined schema.
> 
> I wasn't around when PG's temp table concept was created, but I think
> it's considerably superior to the spec's concept.

That was me.  I think you were around, though.

> I'm willing to compare the spec's notions for guidance, but we must not
> take it as gospel when we're deciding how temp objects should behave.
> Their concept of temp-ness is different and very much more limited.

Well, again, looking at desired practice, I can't see how it can be
argued that having a view on a temp table _not_ exist the temporary
namespace can be defended, and everyone else seems to think it should,
so, added to TODO:
 * Have views on temporary tables exist in the temporary namespace 

TODO updated to remove mention of temporary views.  We sort of now have
temporary views, but not completely so I can't mark those items as done;
I just removed them:
 * Allow temporary views * Require view using temporary tables to be temporary views

They don't behave 100% as temporary because of the namespace conflict.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073